Heard on I.A. No. 5039/2019, an application for dismissal of the

appeal on the ground that Court Fee has not been paid.

3 M.A. No.155/2019

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the

claim of the appellant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 has been rejected on the ground

that they were not the dependents of the deceased.

In the memo of appeal, it is mentioned that no enhancement for

the appellant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 is prayed because they are unable to pay

heavy Court Fees. It is further mentioned that the appellant No. 2 is

entitled to receive more compensation and she is ready to pay the Court

Fee on the enhanced amount whereas the appellant has also prayed for

grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the appellant Nos. 1, 3 and

4.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that Claims

Tribunal has held that since the deceased was a bachelor, therefore, only

appellant No. 2, who is mother of the deceased can be said to be

dependent. Whereas under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act all the

legal representative can maintain the claim petition. It is further

submitted that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others,

reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 is per incuriam as it has not taken note

of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lata

Wadhwa and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in

(2001) 8 SCC 197. It is also submitted that the judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd. and another, reported in 2007 (2) ACCD

863 (SC) has also not been taken note of. The High Court of Himachal

Pradesh in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Gurnam Singh and Others, reported in 2014 ACJ (1) 554 and Patna

High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.

4 M.A. No.155/2019

Biharsarif (Opposite Party No. 3), through Sri Anjani Kumar, A.O.

cum-Duly Constituted Attorney Vs. Devaki Paswan, Son of Late

Chamani Paswan & Ors., reported in 2014 ACJ (2) 1101 have held

that the deductions are provided only in II scheduled made under

Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, neither

multiplier nor deduction is applicable if the case is filed under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that the Supreme

Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has ignored the statutory

provisions of law, therefore, the said judgment is per incuriam. It is

further submitted that the judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi

(supra) has been passed primarily to provide for future prospects and

any other observation made by the Constitutional Bench cannot be

treated as a law of land.

5.

So far as the question of payment of Court Fee is concerned, it is

submitted that as per the Court Fees (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act,

2012 in Schedule-II to the Principle Act, the words 2 1/2 % of the

enhanced amount claimed in appeal subject to a maximum of

Rs.1,00,000/- have been substituted. The word “enhanced amount

claimed” means that the amount which is enhanced by the Appellate

Court and not the amount claimed by the appellant in the appeal. Thus,

the Court Fee is payable only after the entitlement of the appellant is

adjudicated by the Appellate Court and not at the time of the

presentation of the appeal. It is further submitted that various Courts are

passing different orders. Some of the Co-ordinate Benches had

exempted the appellant to pay the Court Fee at the time of final hearing

whereas some of the Co-ordinate Benches are directing that the Court

Fee should be paid at the time of presentation of the appeal. Therefore,

5 M.A. No.